Well, there is at least one time I do allow a stat boost to raise the power of a belt of giant strength, but that's the Hammer of Thunderbolts that requires such a belt in the first place, as well as gauntlets of ogre power. To me, it makes no sense for the hammer's +4 strength bonus to be redundant in the face of having the belt and gauntlet, but rather should stack with it.
Hammer of Thunderbolts explicitly stacks +4 Strength on top of the flat value from the belt. That is the specific effect of a legendary item.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Well, there is at least one time I do allow a stat boost to raise the power of a belt of giant strength, but that's the Hammer of Thunderbolts that requires such a belt in the first place, as well as gauntlets of ogre power. To me, it makes no sense for the hammer's +4 strength bonus to be redundant in the face of having the belt and gauntlet, but rather should stack with it.
Hammer of Thunderbolts explicitly stacks +4 Strength on top of the flat value from the belt. That is the specific effect of a legendary item.
Except its not explicit, nor a specific trait of a legendary item. Its obviously intended to work this way, but its not explicitly stated in such a way that its unique to this legendary. And that's why its notable to look at - because "set value to X" isn't as absolute as some have made it to be.
Except its not explicit, nor a specific trait of a legendary item. Its obviously intended to work this way, but its not explicitly stated in such a way that its unique to this legendary. And that's why its notable to look at - because "set value to X" isn't as absolute as some have made it to be.
I agree, it doesn't say "it adds +4 strength even when another item says you have X strength". The weird thing is also that the hammer says you need to "wear" the gauntlets and the belt, it says nothing about attuning to it. Meaning you could have them on your person, wearing them, and still attune to, say, a [Tooltip Not Found] as well as [Tooltip Not Found]. Which, to me would say that the hammer increases your "base Strength". Perhaps it should say
"While you are attuned to this weapon and holding it, your current Strength score increases by 4 and can exceed 20, but not 30"
However, the sage advice clearly states the RAI, meaning that it would stack with the belt's set strength. Has anyone tried what happens on a character on DDB?
Yes, I have tried it on DDB. Yes, it is explicit. Yes, it is unique to this weapon (requiring gloves/belt). It works as intended (to the best of DDB capabilities). Does everything on DDB work the way it is supposed to? No, there are various technical limitations, and there is no way for them (currently) to require separate items to be present before allowing attunement to a different item. DDB will let you equip & attune to a Hammer of Thunderbolts immediately, and in a vacuum. That doesn't make it a legal thing for a character to do by the actual source. Legendary/Relic objects always have unique circumstances that may break the mold of general rules, but they usually make sense.
On whether you need to actually attune to the belt/gloves? Crawford says you don't. I feel very differently. I don't necessarily disagree, but I sure as hell do not fully agree with that implication: If you aren't attuned, you're not really wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power. You're wearing a set of mundane gauntlets that--for all intents and purposes--look like Gauntlets of Ogre Power. If you don't have to actually be personally attuned to the magics specific to that item, in order to tap into a different item's power, then what's the point of requiring it at all?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes, it is explicit. Yes, it is unique to this weapon.
Explicit means that something is plainly stated, leaving no room for doubt; going strictly by the text in the book, its not completely clear and there's room for doubt or different interpretations. The book doesn't make clear the hammer is also unique - rather, given the similarity in wording, you could easily argue that a Headband of Intellect stacks with an Ioun Stone of Intellect, bringing you up to a INT score of 20.
On whether you need to actually attune to the belt/gloves? Crawford says you don't. I feel very differently. I don't necessarily disagree, but I sure as hell do not fully agree with that implication: If you aren't attuned, you're not really wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power. You're wearing a set of mundane gauntlets that--for all intents and purposes--look like Gauntlets of Ogre Power. If you don't have to actually be personally attuned to the magics specific to that item, in order to tap into a different item's power, then what's the point of requiring it at all?
In either case, I've found that Crawford's tweets, while technically official, sometimes contradict what is directly written in the book or later tweets, or is later errata'd, or simply breaks from common sense, so I don't really have faith in the man's twitter feed.
The man tries to make rulings on the game as if it was 4th edition, which relied on using a highly technical language. But the D&D core book writers deliberately ditched technical language and favored casual speech, a direct reaction against how 4e worked. His rulings, frankly, can often be stupid and against what I feel the writers actually intended.
I recall that his ruling on Twinning the Dragons Breath spell was so nonsensical, I just lost all faith in the man to have reasonable solutions to questions.
In either case, I've found that Crawford's tweets, while technically official, sometimes contradict what is directly written in the book or later tweets, or is later errata'd, or simply breaks from common sense, so I don't really have faith in the man's twitter feed.
The man tries to make rulings on the game as if it was 4th edition, which relied on using a highly technical language. But the D&D core book writers deliberately ditched technical language and favored casual speech, a direct reaction against how 4e worked. His rulings, frankly, can often be stupid and against what I feel the writers actually intended.
That is probably why his tweets are no longer official (doesn't mean they can't still be helpful) and only the SAC has official rulings.
As with earlier versions of D&D, the added ability bonuses above the max are and should be up to the DM/GM. They are the one who has to face the outcome of the determination. Although I do fill the basic guidelines of the game should be adhered to.
Hammer of Thunderbolts explicitly stacks +4 Strength on top of the flat value from the belt. That is the specific effect of a legendary item.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yep, you can find the sage advice on it here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/29/does-the-bonus-strength-from-the-hammer-of-thunderbolts-stack-with-your-giants-strength-belt/
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Except its not explicit, nor a specific trait of a legendary item. Its obviously intended to work this way, but its not explicitly stated in such a way that its unique to this legendary. And that's why its notable to look at - because "set value to X" isn't as absolute as some have made it to be.
I agree, it doesn't say "it adds +4 strength even when another item says you have X strength". The weird thing is also that the hammer says you need to "wear" the gauntlets and the belt, it says nothing about attuning to it. Meaning you could have them on your person, wearing them, and still attune to, say, a [Tooltip Not Found] as well as [Tooltip Not Found]. Which, to me would say that the hammer increases your "base Strength". Perhaps it should say
"While you are attuned to this weapon and holding it, your current Strength score increases by 4 and can exceed 20, but not 30"
However, the sage advice clearly states the RAI, meaning that it would stack with the belt's set strength. Has anyone tried what happens on a character on DDB?
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Yes, I have tried it on DDB. Yes, it is explicit. Yes, it is unique to this weapon (requiring gloves/belt). It works as intended (to the best of DDB capabilities). Does everything on DDB work the way it is supposed to? No, there are various technical limitations, and there is no way for them (currently) to require separate items to be present before allowing attunement to a different item. DDB will let you equip & attune to a Hammer of Thunderbolts immediately, and in a vacuum. That doesn't make it a legal thing for a character to do by the actual source. Legendary/Relic objects always have unique circumstances that may break the mold of general rules, but they usually make sense.
On whether you need to actually attune to the belt/gloves? Crawford says you don't. I feel very differently. I don't necessarily disagree, but I sure as hell do not fully agree with that implication: If you aren't attuned, you're not really wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power. You're wearing a set of mundane gauntlets that--for all intents and purposes--look like Gauntlets of Ogre Power. If you don't have to actually be personally attuned to the magics specific to that item, in order to tap into a different item's power, then what's the point of requiring it at all?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think you get it. If its below 19 set it to 19. But if you want to go above don't add the items set value.
Explicit means that something is plainly stated, leaving no room for doubt; going strictly by the text in the book, its not completely clear and there's room for doubt or different interpretations. The book doesn't make clear the hammer is also unique - rather, given the similarity in wording, you could easily argue that a Headband of Intellect stacks with an Ioun Stone of Intellect, bringing you up to a INT score of 20.
In either case, I've found that Crawford's tweets, while technically official, sometimes contradict what is directly written in the book or later tweets, or is later errata'd, or simply breaks from common sense, so I don't really have faith in the man's twitter feed.
The man tries to make rulings on the game as if it was 4th edition, which relied on using a highly technical language. But the D&D core book writers deliberately ditched technical language and favored casual speech, a direct reaction against how 4e worked. His rulings, frankly, can often be stupid and against what I feel the writers actually intended.
I recall that his ruling on Twinning the Dragons Breath spell was so nonsensical, I just lost all faith in the man to have reasonable solutions to questions.
We're getting a bit sidetracked of the OP's original question, which has been answered and confirmed several times. Perhaps a mod's lock is in order?
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
That is probably why his tweets are no longer official (doesn't mean they can't still be helpful) and only the SAC has official rulings.
Huh. Did not know they were no longer official. Good to know. Just out of curiosity, when/where did it happen?
January 30, 2019 Sage Advice Compendium.
As with earlier versions of D&D, the added ability bonuses above the max are and should be up to the DM/GM. They are the one who has to face the outcome of the determination. Although I do fill the basic guidelines of the game should be adhered to.
other abilities, such as permanent boosts that make your intelligence higher than the 18 possible. my artificer/blood hunter has a 29 int